Skip to main content

It is upto the bank to recover money from guarantor or borrower: NCDRC

The national consumer commission has dismissed a man's plea filed against a bank which recovered from him the dues, borrowed by a person whom he had introduced to it, saying that "it is the choice of bank to recover money either from the guarantor or the borrower".

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), presided by Justice J M Malik, dismissed the complaint filed by Kerala resident R S Vasan against Canara Bank, while rejecting his contention that he was not a guarantor and that for the recovery, the bank should have first approached the family of the borrower who had died.

"It is well-settled that it is the choice of the bank to recover the money either from the guarantor or the borrower. It is abhorrent from the principles of law to say that the bank must first of all recover the money from the borrower and thereafter it can proceed against the guarantor," NCDRC said. It passed the order while hearing a revision petition filed by the bank against Kerala State Consumer Commission, which had directed it to pay Rs 1,49,698 to Vasan.

The district forum, too, had decided the case in Vasan's favour. NCDRC reversed both the orders passed by the lower foras. NCDRC, while rejecting Vasan's claim that he had no intention to be a guarantor, said that he had signed the blank papers at his own peril. "The complainant signed the blank papers, if any, with his open eyes and on his own volition. Even if he has signed the blank papers, he did it at his own peril," it said.

Vasan had told the district forum that he introduced C K Prabhakaran to the bank on June 22, 1996, which extended Rs one lakh to him (Prabhakaran) against immovable property. He said that he had no intention to be a guarantor or a surety for the overdraft facility given to Prabhakaran, but he was made to sign some blank papers. He said that Prabhakaran died on June 7, 2001, and the bank informed Vasan on June 22, 2003, that overdraft facility had been given on his (Vasan) surety and a sum of Rs 1,36,135.50 could be liquidated against his term deposit. Vasan, however, immediately replied denying his liability.

In the meantime, the bank issued another letter mentioning the amount due as Rs 1,45,799.30. Subsequently, it informed Vasan that the amount under overdraft had been adjusted against his term deposit. The district forum, however, had asked the bank to pay Vasan Rs 1,48,698 and also to pay Rs 1,000 as costs. The state consumer commission dismissed the appeal, filed by the bank against the forum's order, with Rs 5,000 as costs.

 Article referred: http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report-it-is-upto-the-bank-to-recover-money-from-guarantor-or-borrower-ncdrc-2017218

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more